$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010342132026 + BAIL APPLN. 3013/2026 ARJUN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, Ms. Shivpa Taneja and Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocates. versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. SI Om Prakash, WSI Komal, PS Mansarovar Park. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 355/2025 dated 30.09.2025, registered at PS Mansarovar Park, Delhi, under Sections 85/109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2025 information was received from GTB Hospital regarding the admission of the wife of the applicant with burn injuries. Her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Shahdara, wherein she stated that the applicant, under the influence of liquor had quarrelled with and beaten her and had thereafter This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:16:39 poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire with a lighter. The FIR was registered upon that statement, a plastic bottle containing kerosene, a lighter and the burnt clothing were seized from the spot and the chargesheet stands filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the case is in truth one of self-immolation, the victim having threatened suicide during a verbal spat immediately prior to the incident, whereupon the applicant made a video call to her brother, who counselled her against any extreme step, a screenshot of that call being on record. It is further submitted that there are inconsistencies in the prosecution case, that the investigation is complete, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that he has been in judicial custody since 01.10.2025, having undergone approximately 11 months and 7 days as on 07.09.2026. 4. These contentions are opposed the learned APP for the State. It is submitted that the applicant poured kerosene upon the victim and set her on fire with the intention of killing her and had also subjected her to cruelty. It is further submitted that the injuries are grievous in nature and with regards to the gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The principles governing the grant of bail have been summarised in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.1, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee2, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI3 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI4, 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:16:39 wherein it is held that the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal the exception, the object of bail being to secure the presence of the accused at the trial. 7. The discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS must, however, be exercised judiciously. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr5, the Supreme Court held that the Court must examine whether there is a prima facie ground for believing that the accused has committed the offence and having regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant considerations, determine whether continued custody is warranted. 8. Applying these parameters, the statement of the victim recorded by the Executive Magistrate attributes the act directly to the applicant and that version is prima facie supported by the recovery from the spot. The plea of self-immolation and the inconsistencies urged can only be tested at the trial. 9. The offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS is punishable with imprisonment for life and the injuries are grievous. The victim is present and the burn injuries upon her face are clearly visible. The material on record cannot prima facie be said to disclose a false or concocted prosecution case and the incarceration of about 11 months does not, by itself, entitle the applicant to bail. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application fails and is, therefore, dismissed at this stage. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/aks/hr 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51. 5 (2020) 2 SCC 118. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:16:39